M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, J. - (1.) DEEPAK Prakash, the petitioner, who was initially appointed as Chairman of the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) by the order of the Governor dated 26.10.2003 invoking powers under Article 35(a) of the Articles of Association of the Corporation, was removed from the post of Chairman on 4.5.2007 by the Governor invoking Article 35(e)(iv) of the Articles of Association. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE petitioner has made two -fold prayer in the present writ petition - (i) for declaring the powers of the Governor under Article 35(e)(iv) of the Articles of Association of the Corporation for removal of the Chairman as void and ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution and (ii) for holding that the order of removal of the petitioner from the post of Chairman of the Corporation through notification dated 4.5.2007 is illegal. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, appearing for the petitioner, would elaborately argue with reference to these prayers. The gist of the submissions made with regard to each prayer could be summarized as follows: (i) Under Article 35(e)(iv) of the Articles of Association of the Corporation, the Governor may at any time remove the Chairman at his absolute discretion. This Article does not provide for giving opportunity to the person concerned before removal; there is no need to comply with the principles of natural justice; there is also no need for the Governor to assign any reason for removal. There is no guideline prescribed under the provisions of law as to how the said absolute discretion is to be exercised by the Governor. The absolute power of exercising discretion cannot be vested upon any authority. Therefore, this Article giving absolute discretion is to be declared void and ultra vires to the Article 14 of the Constitution. (ii) The submission with regard to the second prayer is as follows: (A) Under Article 163 of the Constitution, the Governor has to act only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under the Rules of Executive Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution. The decision for removal of the Chairman of the Corporation has to be taken by the Cabinet consisting of Council of Ministers and only on its recommendation, the Governor can pass an order of removal. This has not been done in this case. (B) Even though the absolute discretion is vested with the Governor in the matter of removal of the Chairman, the same has to be exercised in good faith and on relevant considerations based upon the materials. The satisfaction of the authority should not be based upon extraneous grounds such as mala fide etc. The very fact that no reason has been assigned in the matter of removal by the Governor would show that the Governor has not applied his mind and exercised discretionary power on the basis of objective materials. (C) The doctrine of pleasure as vested under Article 310 of the Constitution has no application in the present case. In this case, the petitioner was appointed earlier by the then Government and he has been removed by the present Government with different political party in power. As such, the Governor acted at the instance of the political power and political reasons, which reflects mala fide. Therefore, the order is illegal.
(3.) IN reply to the above submissions, the Advocate General would contend that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to question the validity of the Articles of Association framed under the Companies Act. He would also contend that the absolute discretion used by the Governor has been properly exercised and in the absence of any material to show that there is mala fide, the order cannot be said to be illegal, especially when the order does not indicate any stigma cast on the person removed.;